Part 2 – The Virgin : About Mary
Luke 1:26-38 - God’s timing of His Word and fulfillment of promises. One of the greatest dramas in the whole of account of human history – The Incarnation. The mystery of ages begins to be revealed. God in flesh, to live among us and be with us – we His human creatures made by Him in His own image. Ensuring the fulfillment of prophecy by being the fulfillment. God’s love embodied in the Savior He appointed to reconcile us to Himself, Christ the Lord, the Messiah of God.
So, let us start with the specific prophecy of Isaiah 7:13-14. The prophecy tells us that “a virgin will conceive and bear a Son and his name will be called Immanuel (God with us).” God has said of Himself that for Him, nothing is impossible.
For a Jewish person learned in the Mosaic Law this concept was an oxymoron – a contradiction or in the very least, a paradox of what was known. The Law identified God’s holiness in the purity of virginity. The Law in and of itself did not support a virgin or an unmarried woman being made pregnant and simultaneously finding favor with God. Those women upon whom God’s mighty hand had removed their shame of a barren womb and caused them to become pregnant were all married – Sarah, Rachel, Hannah, Leah; and in the first century, notably Elizabeth. They were not virgins. And yet, God said in Isaiah that His plan would involve a virgin who bore a son, that this would be an essential hallmark of His salvation plan, of God’s imminent action in the world. Even while this prophecy was paradoxical, God had provided every reason for mankind to trust Him and His Word (compare Exodus 14:31; Deuteronomy 1:31-33; Psalm 119; Proverbs 3; 1 Chronicle 5:20)
Nor did the Law discuss alternative options for a virgin birth – primarily because pregnancy was to be the potential result of honorable marriage in the Jewish civil/moral/ceremonial laws and customs. Any proven indication that a young woman and man had violated that law could subject each of them to the consequences of breaking that solemn law – the extreme consequence being death by stoning (see this sobering message at Deuteronomy 22). Marriage was a divine institution of God, something holy; God took seriously violation of that holy act. The challenge presented by this paradoxical prophecy – as with other prophecies humans have tried to understand with our limited capacities and even more limited faith – could result in persons not believing in it. And did. It would be one of those points of stumbling that would be associated with the identity of the Messiah (Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:33).
Traveling 800 years later to the account at Luke 1. The Bible account does not indicate that time lapsed between the angel Gabriel’s announcement of God’s plan and Mary/Miriam’s saying yes, i.e., she did not say “Hmmm, I must give this some heavy thought; return later and I will let you know what I decide.” Let’s look at Mary’s person and character – she was not born a prophetess. As a female, her presence at the temple would be with the other females in what was called the Ezrat HaNashim – the court of the women, located in the outer forecourt. They did not worship alongside the men. She had no certification of worship leadership, she was no religious savant, she carried no other designation or activity that would have elevated her status within her society and community. She was no princess, nor anyone born to wealth – just the very opposite. She lived in the common, poor circumstances of village folk within a political framework that fostered policies to keep her and others poor. She was simply one of hundreds of ordinary Jewish girls in their teens; thus, to the world, Mary was an obscure ‘nobody’. Mary had been shaped by Jewish law and traditions – as had others of her peers, and recognized her place within the community where she hoped to eventually become a married woman and contribute to the ongoing growth of that community through her own childbearing. Her heart shaped by faith was opened to God because she knew His character as repeatedly told to her in the stories of her people’s history.
Based on what God has revealed of Himself and of His purpose, one can firmly believe that when God spoke the prophecy in Isaiah 7, He had already ordained or predestined Mary’s role in His salvific plan from before the foundation of the world. What transpired at Luke 1:26-38 was a fulfillment of that part of God’s plan formed from before time.
Now, without a doubt, there are Bible scholars and others who will not agree with that position. Perhaps some of those same scholars also promote the idea that there were two Isaiahs attached to the book of Isaiah. After all, they may say, the prophecy does not identify the virgin by the name ‘Mary’ specifically – which may fuel their ‘logic argument”. If so, that is a weak argument that falls apart quickly. While some may at God’s discretion, not every prophecy names the individual or individuals involved. The prophecy at Isaiah 7 says that the child’s name would be Immanuel – God with us - but at God’s discretion, leaves off the familiar name for the child – Jesus – which is a form of Joshua/Yeshua meaning God is salvation – which was a common enough name (as well as some derivative thereof) for a Jewish male. A closer look at the name “Immanuel” reveals a deeper punctuation of God’s salvation plan by indicating that when this foretold One arrived on the scene, He would be God living among them – that He would be fully God and fully man. The child to be born and live as a human is also referred to as Anointed within the other prophecies that speak of Him, and is called the Son of David or seed of Jesse. Nor does the prophecy at Isaiah 40:3 name John, son of Zechariah, as the one preparing the way for the Lord (we know him as John the Baptizer; in Hebrew his name would be Yohanan, which means “Yahweh has been gracious”).
Another path of human logic about Mary and the prophecy at Isaiah 7 is the presumption of the possibility that perhaps God may have asked other young women candidates to carry out the plan and only Mary said yes, thus solving the riddle, suggesting that Mary was one of a pool of candidates who were interviewed for that role. They may say, after all - this is a legitimate point of view based on human experience and human reason. It is a procedure that is often used; even when we were kids playing and chose team members, we considered the benefits of so-and-so versus the other, and chose who we thought would help us be winners. At various times of year, humans choose political leaders to represent them and operationalize policies we agree with. Or, as an employer, when we search for a special person to fill an essential position or role in our business, we analyze resumes, interview candidates until we find whom we perceive to be the right fit.
But, what would such a lottery approach tell us about God’s plan of salvation? Does it not suggest that His plan could possibly hinge on the ‘luck of the draw’, that Mary was God’s best guess for the person who would carry Jesus into the world as very human, yet very God? That God was hoping that the right candidate would step up to the plate? That Mary was but one of a pool of optimal candidates who could potentially fit the bill?
Thanks and praise to God that He created us with minds that think, that analyze, that imagine things and seek answers. That He gives us the ability to think outside the box and let us see new possibilities. That He has created us in His image, and is the Creator God who gives us minds and abilities to reason and create novel things with our minds and hands. Lord, like any other gift you provide to us, we pray that we will use these gifts of open-mindedness, of analytical thinking and probing, of questioning and of seeking answers, of reasoning out, talking through paradoxes – all in ways that honor you, and which feed true worship and thanksgiving to you (see Philippians 4:8-9; Psalm 25:4-5; Psalm 51:6; Psalm 119:5-6; , 66-67; Psalm 143:10). Help us to reason with the mind of Christ that God the Holy Spirit strives to create within us (see 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; Romans 11:33-12:3). Help us remember that we must take care that our thoughts harmonize with the tenet of scripture so that we are not misled to believe faith-eroding concepts. Remind us that when we come to difficult passages to interpret scripture with scripture, i.e., the Spirit-wrapped and infused Word of God by the Holy Spirit and the understanding He gives, and not rely on our own understanding. (compare Psalm 111:7, 10; Psalms 119:4, 15, 27, 33-34; 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-18; Genesis 40:8; Proverbs 3:5-8; Daniel 2:30; Luke 24:13-27; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:19-21)
Some lean into their own interpretations possibly because they see God’s Word as being too rigid and find some pleasure in human reasoning when it comes to doctrine (compare Isaiah 5:21,24; Isaiah 9:8-10; Isaiah 28:13; and Isaiah 29:13-14).
(Interestingly there is a version of the Bible in publication called the New Life Version, which seems to have tampered with the language at Luke 1:28 to imply Mary was the winning candidate among other women. It is the only version that I’ve found so far that has done this.)
If we are believing in the sureness of God’s salvation, we are trusting God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – even when we don’t immediately or fully understand His Word. We can trust Him as the Eternal One before whom is all of time, and who existed before time was created. We can be assured by what the ‘God-breathed’ scripture tells us, that God had already settled before the foundation of the world how the salvation plan would be executed, and how God’s long-held plan harmonizes with the rest of scripture in the Old and New Testament, that is, His Gospel and Word. Thus, we can have confidence in believing that the person Mary had already been determined by God as part of His plan from before time (compare Ephesians 1:3-4; Acts 4:27-28; Romans 8:29-30).
The unadulterated language of Luke 1:28 states plainly that God had chosen her – that she had been pre-determined as part of God’s plan. (compare to God’s predestination or the fore-ordination of God’s King in His over-arching salvation plan, versus human supposition at 1 Samuel 16:1-13) The verses at 28-38 indicate a girl who, by grace, had learned already to develop a strong belief in Yahweh, to believe in His Word and promises. Her mind and heart had been shaped by the word, acts, and promises of God. Through a learned faith in the only true God and the Spirit’s work in her, she was able to say yes. She believed in the Providence of God. She trusted Him. She had a healthy innocence about her – based in the belief that her life was in the hands of the Almighty Elohim, El Shaddai, Yahweh Tzebaot, Adonai. She believed the messenger of God and was humbled by God’s unmerited favor upon her, and she obeyed. She could not possibly understand all of the ramifications of her ‘yes’, no more than we could have foreseen all that God would be doing in our lives when we said yes to His call on us – in that way we can identify with Mary because just as God had determined from before time how Mary would be a part of His salvation plan, from before time God had called us to be a part of that salvific drama (recall the reading at Ephesians 1).
[In the Bible book of Revelation, chapter 12, we receive a high-level vision of God shepherding and shaping time, circumstance, events and historical markers to bring forth His salvific plan. Again, in this glimpse into God’s eternal workings, nothing is left to chance or supposition, nor can the enemy supplant God’s salvific will. (The ‘woman’ is Israel with whom God’s covenant relation existed; Israel would bring forth/’give birth’ to the promised Savior and Messiah, through whom God’s salvific plan would be operationalized and executed).]
To take the view that the identity of the young woman who would carry within her body the Son of God would be left to chance is not only out of harmony with all else to be known about God, it also casts a shadow on God’s promises – painting them with a dependence on human response to make them come true.
As with any part of scripture that is hard to understand, we must always petition the Father to have the Holy Spirit enlighten us – since He is the true author of scripture. (see John 16:13-14; 2 Timothy 3:16-17)
No comments:
Post a Comment